Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on October 10, 2021, 10:19:AM
-
Bearing in mind that 'Nevill Bamber' was supposedly shot, either by 'Sheila', 'Jeremy','or some third party involvement', it is worth taking into account the angle, direction, position of 'Neville Bambers' body at the time he received that 'tightly knit volley' of 'four fatal head shots' ..
Since, those four consecutively fired shots could not in my opinion have been fired with such accuracy and precision, by bullets or pellets that were fired from any of the three general types of. 22 firearm known to be present at the scene. Everything points to 'the use of an automatic weapon being used', similarly to shots fired into one of the child victims in this tragedy..
-
Prior to these injuries being inflicted, 'Neville Bamber' must have been sat on a wooden chair that was pressed against the kitchen side of an internal door, which the firearms team had to get through..
-
It surely must follow, that with 'Neville' sat wounded on that chair in the only available space between the left hand edge of the red painted aga surround and the face of the external kitchen wall [ at a right angle to the position of the internal door] that neither 'Sheila' or 'Jeremy' could have been responsible for inflicting any of those four fatal head wounds to the head of 'Neville Bamber' simply by virtue of the fact of the angle that the four key bullets entered the skull, linked to there being insufficient room for the rifle to have been held in position to enable the four shots to be discharged!
Whoever was responsible for inflicting those four fatal head wounds had to either have 'come through the internal kitchen/hallway door'[and shoot him in that instant], or `shoot him after his body got toppled over`...
The crime scene photographs showing the final resting place of 'Mr Bamber seniors body, tells a story of its own. Since, if police who entered the kitchen via that/this internal door how could their have been something behind the other side of the internal door that they became delayed at in trying to get into the kitchen?
It leaves me no option to conclude that these/those fatal four head wounds must have been inflicted by a police weapon during the forced entry via the internal hallway/kitchen door, behind which the injured body of 'Neville Bamber had been the cause of the obstruction/delay...
-
According to a police officers account whose duty was to eavesdrop the open line link from the farmhouse [from the in house 999 emergency call to police, requesting ambulances for the wounded and deceased made by 'Sheila' at 6.09am, to the police, he kept a handwritten log of all that he heard. At one point, he recorded hearing vioces and five knocks (shots fired) as the firearm officers entered the kitchen - this coincides with the fact that at the time of the forced entry into the farmhouse, that five fatal shots were fired [4 shots into head of 'Neville Bamber', and one (non fatal shot) shot into 'Sheila Caffells throat/neck']..
-
The same outcome occurred in the bedroom where the twins had been sleeping - another case of four consecutively fired shots to the back/top of the head...
-
In my opinion, each of the four fatal head shots inflicted to 'Neville Bambers' head, were not received until after 'Neville' had sat on the wooden chair that was pressed tightly on the kitchen side of the internal door which led out to the back passage way. Firearm officers were held up and prevented from gaining a quick entry into the kitchen and beyond, because there was something very heavy on the inward opening side of that internal door. It took four burley firearm officers about 5 minutes to force open this internal door, and although entry to the farmhouse had commenced at around 7.30am, it wasn't until 7.35am that a message was passed from inside the kitchen that upon entry two bodies were found. Two minutes afterwards, at 7.37am, another message passed via police radio to senior officers who were sheltering in a nearby farm outbuilding, to the effect that two bodies had been found upon entry to the farmhouse kitchen. A minute or so later [7.38am] `the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female'. Then at 7.42am, a message passed from senior officers at the scene to the control room at Chelmsford police headquarters for a senior investigating officer, the police surgeon, and the coroners officer to be contacted regarding the discovery of two dead bodies upon entry into the premises.
This leaves it wide open to infer that 'Neville' and 'Sheilas' bodies were present in the kitchen at the time burley firearm officers forced open the blocked and problematic internal door. The consequences of this, was that 'Neville Bamber' must have still been alive at that stage. My reason for beleiving this, is that it would have been impossible for one person to have shot 'Neville' dead by inclusion of the four fatal head wounds, beforehand, and then lift and position his body in a sitting position on the wooden chair backed up to the internal door, without leaving clear signs that his body had been manhandled by the killer. Furthermore, no-one could have shot 'Neville' with either of the four fatal head wounds whilst he was seated in the chair, due to the fact that their was insufficient room between the right hand side of 'Neville Bambers' head and his body and the external wall of the kitchen for a shooter to have been able to get the desired angle of fire, using a rifle of any description, because the gap between body and the external kitchen wall was too small to accommodate such a weapon, enabling two double taps in two different parts of the victims head. Careful study of the double wounds of the four fatal gunshot wounds to 'Nevilles' head provides clear evidence that he must have received these fatal head wounds with his head falling at different angles at the time of the forced entry into the kitchen. It should be possible, for an appropriate expert witness to confirm that shots marked 3 and 4, were not fired at the same time, as shots marked 1 and 2, by a reliance on the angle where each pair of the crucial 4 fatal headwounds entered the victims head, as well as a (distinctive) noticeable gap between shots 3 and 4 [wider] and shots 1 and 2 [narrower]. This in my view is capable of allowing us to work out, that there was 'a very slight delay' between shots 3 and 4 being fired, and the other two shots [1 and 2], as the victims body was 'toppled from the seat of his wooden chair' toward the metal coal hod on the kitchen floor by the corner of the aga surround. Shots 3 and 4 were inflicted as 'one officer entered the kitchen once police had managed to push 'Neville Bambers' body sufficiently out of the way to enable the opening edge of the internal door to open' [right to left - door hinges on left hand side of the door and which 'allowed the first armed officer access into the kitchen at which time he must have fired off shots 3 and 4 into the top right part of 'Neville Bambers' head'. Then almost instantly, 'as the victims body was toppling forward' , or 'when the victims body had come to rest' , the same firearm officer finished 'Neville' off, with 'a double shot tap [shots 1 and 2] to the victims head'..
-
The two double tapped shots [3 and 4, 1 and 2] belonging to the four fatal head wounds inflicted upon 'Neville Bamber' were fired by someone who is considered [in my view] to have been a trained and highly skilled marksman. Those four fatal shots [3 and 4 - 1 and 2] stand out like a red flag was compared to other wounds inflicted upon 'Neville Bambers' body, and the others, with the exception of the four head shots inflicted to 'Nicholas Caffell'...
I am now inclined to beleive that '`Sheila' did carry out some of the shootings, and that a highly skilled marksman, was/is responsible for the four immediately fatal head shots received by 'Neville Bamber' in the kitchen., and four of the five immediately fatal head wounds inflicted upon/to 'Nicholas Caffell'. If I am right about this, then we need to look more carefully at the number of bullets that were potentially fired by 'Sheila', 'Jeremy' or lets just say 'an' accomplice', whilst at the same time try to evaluate exactly how many shots could or may have, or was fired by an armed officer..
These are my thoughts as I attempt to unravel what really took place:-
(1) - at least three but possibly four different firearms could have been used during the shootings, these are, or could be:-
(a) - the .22 semi-automatic anshuzt rifle, with one magazine full of. 22 LR ammunition (only 10 rounds)
(b) - the .22 bolt action, [brno make] rifle (only 5 rounds)
(c) - the .22 [BSA] air rifle (only 1 pellet]
(d) - police issue weapon (8 rounds discharged, into targets - 1 round used in substitution of 1 pellet linked to unfatal shot to 'Sheila Caffells neck)
10 shots
05 shots
01 shot
08 shots + (1 round used in substitution drill involving bullet' PV/20')..
Total number of shots fired '25'..
-
I am now inclined to beleive that '`Sheila' did carry out some of the shootings, and that a highly skilled marksman, was/is responsible for the four immediately fatal head shots received by 'Neville Bamber' in the kitchen., and four of the five immediately fatal head wounds inflicted upon/to 'Nicholas Caffell'. If I am right about this, then we need to look more carefully at the number of bullets that were potentially fired by 'Sheila', 'Jeremy' or lets just say 'an' accomplice', whilst at the same time try to evaluate exactly how many shots could or may have, or was fired by an armed officer..
I have managed to identify the firearms officer most likely to have discharged 8 police rounds into two of the victims [`Neville Bamber' and 'Nicholas Caffell'] and another live round issued to him by the 'force armory' when he commenced duty on 7th August 1985. By the end of his tour of duty, he was at least 8 rounds short of ammunition allocated to him against signatures, of the issuing officer, and himself. The firearm officer in question was/is 'PS Woodcock. I attach a copy of his edited witness statement to confirm that the contents of his witness statement has been/was altered and tampered with...
On page 1 of' PS Woodcocks' witness statement, dated the 20th September 1985, it clearly states that 'his witness statement consisted of 13 pages' , but there are/is only 10 such pages. Infact, there appears to be a total of 3 pages of evidence which for one reason or another remains unaccounted for'..
Please note the the typeset changes at page 6, which is the part of his witness statement where he describes entering the farmhouse kitchen through the blocked off inner door that links the kitchen and back passageway...
-
Please try to pay attention to what I am about to say...
In the vast majority of cases where police [back in the day, mid-eighties to mid 90's]' government policy with regards to the detection of various types of crime was the' be all, and the end all', for police forces throughout the length and breath of the uk, to be recognised for their ability to solve different types of alleged offence.
The path of resolution, on behalf of the police forces/ prosecuting authorities to take the decision that someone other than the accused was somehow available to the victim and that similar consideration capable of portraying 'Jeremy' as the guilty party...
Concentrate on the fact that the content of 'PS Woodcock' dated the 20th September 1985, was /is fraudulent and that the wicked lies told by this 'monster of a cop' , was influenced by 'the then recent appointment of the devilish', 'DCS Ainsley' who was hell-bent on keeping the relative clan, happy and appreciative of the delayed Essex police attitude, in accepting that 'Sheila' was being made a scapegoat for every aspect of the shooting tragedy...
-
These are my thoughts as I attempt to unravel what really took place:-
(1) - at least three but possibly four different firearms could have been used during the shootings, these are, or could be:-
(a) - the .22 semi-automatic anshuzt rifle, with one magazine full of. 22 LR ammunition (only 10 rounds)
(b) - the .22 bolt action, [brno make] rifle (only 5 rounds)
(c) - the .22 [BSA] air rifle (only 1 pellet]
(d) - police issue weapon (8 rounds discharged, into targets - 1 round used in substitution of 1 pellet linked to unfatal shot to 'Sheila Caffells neck)
10 shots
05 shots
01 shot
08 shots + (1 round used in substitution drill involving bullet' PV/20')..
Total number of shots fired '25'..
Reliance upon the above use of various types of firearm in the overal shooting scenario, where all the above rifles were used to fire shots at different stages of (1) - the seige, (2) - time of entry into kitchen after blockage of the internal door between back passage and kitchen [unconscious body of 'Neville Bamber' seated on wooden chair against kitchen side of aforementioned internal door], (3) - displacemnt of 'Sheila Caffells' body [beleived deceased] from kitchen to main bedroom between 8.10am - 8.30am, (4) - approximately 9.13am, when 'Sheila received the 2nd fatal neck/head wound shot during a training exercise when rookie firearm candidates were being shown how to remove a weapon from a [ victim assumed to be already deceased] body, and replacement of a weapon (on three seperate occasions) at the hand of 'PS Montgomery', '' PS Woodcock' and 'DI Cook'after which' PC Bird' took a series of crime scene photographs capturing the restaged crime scene which became known or referred to [rather and somewhat misleadingly] as 'THE MASTER COPY' Album compromising of 223 photographs which Essex Police presented to the defense and the court, in the build up and during the trial, as being all of the crime scene photographs which had been taken at the incident. Whilst unbeknown to the defense, or the jury, there existed a further 358 original photographs which were withheld, and which were kept under lock and key by the then 'ACC Simpson' inside a safe in his office at Police Headquarters, together with the alternative 223 original copies which was disclosed to the defense, as stated. This meant that there was originally 581 photographs taken by the police in connection with the two part investigation [SC/866/85] which treated the incident as 'four murders and a suicide', then [SC/786/85] 'five murders' into the shootings, where 'DCI Jones' [ 7th August to 8th September 1985] was head of the first bit part of the police handling of the investigation, and' DCS Ainsley' [8th September 1985, onwards] replaced him. The reason for removing 'DCI Jones' from his post, and him being replaced by 'DCS Ainsley' [on the 8th September 1985] came about due to increasing pressure from a number of relatives ['Robert Boutflour', 'David Bouflour', 'Ann Eaton, etc] who got wind of the fact that Essex police were not, and had not been telling them the truth concerning how many times the five victims had been shot.
-
The reason for removing 'DCI Jones' from his post, and him being replaced by 'DCS Ainsley' [on the 8th September 1985] came about due to increasing pressure from a number of relatives ['Robert Boutflour', 'David Bouflour', 'Ann Eaton, etc] who got wind of the fact that Essex police were not, and had not been telling them the truth concerning how many times the five victims had been shot.
On the first morning of the police Investigation,' DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' spoke to 'Ann Eaton' and 'Robert Boutflour' telling them that they had already visited the crime scene and viewed the bodies of the five victims, telling them that 'Neville Bamber' had been found downstairs in the kitchen. Adding that 'June Bamber' and 'Sheila Caffell' had both been found upstairs in the main bedroom, both laying on top of the bed aside one another. They told the relatives that there was a rifle resting on the bed between both of the bodies, and 'Sheila' had a bible resting on her chest. The two boys, 'Nicholas' and 'Daniel Caffell' were each found in their seperate beds in an adjoining bedroom. All the victims had been shot once. They told relatives that 'Sheila' had shot the other four members of her family, then she had shot herself once by an act of suicide..
-
All the victims had been shot once. They told relatives that 'Sheila' had shot the other four members of her family, then she had shot herself once by an act of suicide..
Whilst present at 'Jeremys cottage' 'Ann Eaton overheard' Jeremy' telling the police officers, that there existed a silencer belonging to the. 22 semi- automatic rifle. As a result of this being told to the two police officers by 'Jeremy', 'DS Jones' made an excuse regarding the fact that he needed to return to the scene, and left 9 Head Street, Goldhanger arriving at whf at 11.15am [details recorded in a hand written police log relating to the comings and goings into the farmhouse itself].
He remained at the farmhouse until around 12.15pm, during which time he seized and took possession of a silencer which he recovered either from the kitchen, or the downstairs toilet /bathroom. This silencer became exhibit reference 'SBJ/1', item no. 22. This was the silencer [referred to by 'DI Cook' as not having a signed exhibit label or identifying mark upon it. 'Cook', therefore, attached a fresh exhibit label to that silencer, and gave it an exhibit reference of 'SJ/1', lab item no. 22.To all intents and purposes the silencer 'SBJ/1' item no. 22, that 'DS Jones' took possession of at the scene on 7th Agust 1985, and the silencer 'SJ/1' lab' item no. 22, were one and the same silencer...
-
It remains a distinct possibility that the silencer that 'DS Jones' took possession of at the scene on the frst morning of the shootings investigation [7th August 1985] 'SBJ/1' item no. 22, was the silencer belonging to 'Anthony Pargeters'. 22 bolt action rifle, which 'Jones' mistook it for the silencer that 'Jeremy' had been speaking to the police about earlier that same morning.
'Jones' did not know that there was or should have been two silencers at the scene, (1) - which belonged to the 'Bamber' owned. 22 semi-automatic rifle, and (2) - another which belonged to the 'Pargeter' owned. 22 bolt action rifle. Both of these silencers, looked identical if when viewed together at the same time because the outward design features of both looked the same. However, internally, there was a very distinctive difference because (1) - the 'Bamber' owned silencer only had 14 internal baffle plates [ it was purchased on te 30th November 1984 along with the. 22 semi-automatic rifle, telescopic sight, and 500 rounds of. 22 LR subsonic ammunition. Delivery of these purchases was delayed for one week, due to the fact that there was not any silencers in stock at the gunshop. The gunsmith told 'Neville' and 'Jeremy Bamber' that the reason for tgere being silencers in stock was because the silencer manufacturer (parker hale) were manufacturing a new version of tge previous silencer they had been selling. Hence why it was a week later when the gunsmith delivered the purchased goods, consisting of a rifle, silencer, telescopic sight and 500 rounds of. 22 Ely ammunition to the farmhouse (WHF)..
It's just as likely or possible that the silencer that 'DS Jones' took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985, might have belonged to the 'Bamber'. 22 semi-automatic rifle...
-
The gunsmith told 'Neville' and 'Jeremy Bamber' that the reason for there being silencers in stock was because the silencer manufacturer (parker hale) were manufacturing a new version of the previous silencer they had been selling. Hence why it was a week later when the gunsmith delivered the purchased goods, consisting of a rifle, silencer, telescopic sight and 500 rounds of. 22 Ely ammunition to the farmhouse (WHF)..
In stark contrast, the 'Pargeter' owned silencer [purchased by bimself in 1980] had 17 internal baffle plates as part of its Internal design feature [three more extra internal baffle plates, than the 'Bamber' owned silencer, which only had 14] in addition, I beleive I am correct in saying that because the 'Pargeter' owned silencer had three more additional internal baffle plates than the 'Bamber' owned silencer [which only had 14] that there was a difference in the length of both outer casings with the metal end cap fitted due to the size of each baffle plate, that the difference in length of both of these silencers could range from an additional 1/2 inch - 1 inch in length..
-
.. there was a difference in the length of both outer casings with the metal end cap fitted due to the size of each baffle plate, that the difference in length of both of these silencers could range from an additional 1/2 inch - 1 inch in length..
But, what 'if the smaller in length silencer' had been fitted to the. 22 semi-automatic rifle at the time she received one or other of the two shots she received? Since, the reduction in length between one of these silencers, as opposed to the other, would in my estimation have rendered it possible for 'Sheila' to have shot herself once by use of a. 22 rifle fitted with the smaller silencer [containing only 14 internal baffle plates]
If true, or proveable, this makes a vast difference to the claim that was relied upon at the trial concerning the length of the. 22 semi-automatic rifle, fitl0ted with the silencer [`DRB/1', lab item no. 23/22'] being too long to enable 'Sheila' any opportunity to shoot and kill herself by the weapon being so configured..
-
If true, or proveable, this makes a vast difference to the claim that was relied upon at the trial concerning the length of the. 22 semi-automatic rifle, fitlted with the silencer [`DRB/1', lab item no. 23/22'] being too long to enable 'Sheila' any opportunity to shoot and kill herself by the weapon being so configured..
If accurately assessed by myself, the real crux of the matter, involves the swapping over of one of these two silencers, with the other and then they would have had to introduce a third silencer with 17 internal baffle plates into and onto it, with the faked red paint, and blood group evidence. Since the red particals of paint, could never have been ingrained onto the first silencers that were submitted to the lab' for examination, firstly on 13th August 1985 [`SBJ/1', item no. 22 / 'SJ/1' lab item no. 22] and secondly, the other silencer [`DB/1', lab item no. references 23/22]..
Careful study of the obtaining of blood group evidence which could only have been found inside the silencer [`DB/1', lab' item no. 23]` which went to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985. The relevance of this, was that the damning blood group evidence was obtained from examination of this silencer, at the lab' on the following dates, 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985...
The other [3rd] silencer `DRB/1', [Lab', item no. 23/22] did not get handed over to 'DC Oakey' until the 11th September 1985 by 'Ann Eaton' which remained in the possession of Essex police until after 'DS Eastwood' and 'DS Davison' fingerprinted it at police headquarters on the 13th September 1985, and retained by the police until the 20th September 1985 at which stage it was submitted to Huntingdon Lab' to be expertly examined. With this in mind, the red paint particles from the scratched kitchen aga surround could not have been present on the previously submitted silencers, particulary silencer 'DB/1', lab' item no. 23, because how would th police manage to convince anyone that there were, two silencers with red paint particles from the scratched aga surround? So, when the 3rd silencer ['DRB/1', lab' item no. 23] was evenually examined at the Lab' on the 26th September 1985, the blood group evidence obtained from examination of the other silencer [`DB/1',lab' item no. 23] at the lab' on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, those blood group resulst were taken from a different silencer than 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23, by virtue of the fact that the 3rd silencer [`DRB/1', lab'item no. 23/22] had not yet been sent and received at the lab' until after these / those blood group evidences had already been obtained from the other one.
It's worth remembering that Essex police only received possession of the third silencer 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23/22, from 'Ann Eaton' on the 11th September 1985, together with the fact that the very first crime scene photographs that were taken of scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were taken by DC Oakey on the 14th September 1985, at a time when police still had possession of the 3rd silencer. It seems reasonable to assume that the Scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were deliberately made by co- operation of relatives and police. It would appear that the silencer inside which the blood group evidence was found must have got17 internal baffle plates identifying it being owned by 'Anthony Pargeter' [not the 14 baffle plated 'Bamber' owned one]. I have concluded, that the original silencer [`SBJ/1', item no. 22] that was collected by 'Ds Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, which' Jeremy' alerted both 'he' and 'DC Clark' about and which was the reason why 'DS Jones' left 'Jeremys cottage to return to the crime scene to collect what he beleived to be the' Bamber' owned silencer, which as it turns out must have been or was one and the same silencer in the guise of exhibit reference' SJ/1', lab' item no. 22, which 'Cook' had taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August 1985, a silencer which only had 14 internal baffle plates. The other two silencers sent and received at the lab' on the 30th August 1985, and 20th September 1985, must belong to 'Anthony Pargeter' and one of the relatives [Boutflour / Eaton clan]..
-
Everything points to the fact that the police, relatives and lab' experts or assistants framed 'Jeremy Bamber' for five murders, by deliberately faking blood group evidence found in a silencer with 17 internalised baffle plates, which belonged to 'Anthony Pargeter' or 'one of the other relatives', or vice versa, and the game must surely be up now that the red paint particles ingrained into the knurl of the other 17 baffle plated silencer, were two entirely different silencers than the 'Bamber owned' one..
Relatives, police, and lab' experts must know that the blood group evidence, and the red paint particle evidence were found or deliberately contaminated into, or onto two seperate silencers owned by the relatives who all testified during the trial trying to get 'Jeremy Bamber' convicted of five murders, so that they would be landed with 'Mabel Speakmans' and 'the Bamber parents' inheritances...
-
If accurately assessed by myself, the real crux of the matter, involves the swapping over of one of these two silencers, with the other and then they would have had to introduce a third silencer with 17 internal baffle plates into and onto it, with the faked red paint, and blood group evidence. Since the red particals of paint, could never have been ingrained onto the first silencers that were submitted to the lab' for examination, firstly on 13th August 1985 [`SBJ/1', item no. 22 / 'SJ/1' lab item no. 22] and secondly, the other silencer [`DB/1', lab item no. references 23/22]..
Careful study of the obtaining of blood group evidence which could only have been found inside the silencer [`DB/1', lab' item no. 23]` which went to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985. The relevance of this, was that the damning blood group evidence was obtained from examination of this silencer, at the lab' on the following dates, 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985...
The other [3rd] silencer `DRB/1', [Lab', item no. 23/22] did not get handed over to 'DC Oakey' until the 11th September 1985 by 'Ann Eaton' which remained in the possession of Essex police until after 'DS Eastwood' and 'DS Davison' fingerprinted it at police headquarters on the 13th September 1985, and retained by the police until the 20th September 1985 at which stage it was submitted to Huntingdon Lab' to be expertly examined. With this in mind, the red paint particles from the scratched kitchen aga surround could not have been present on the previously submitted silencers, particulary silencer 'DB/1', lab' item no. 23, because how would th police manage to convince anyone that there were, two silencers with red paint particles from the scratched aga surround? So, when the 3rd silencer ['DRB/1', lab' item no. 23] was evenually examined at the Lab' on the 26th September 1985, the blood group evidence obtained from examination of the other silencer [`DB/1',lab' item no. 23] at the lab' on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, those blood group resulst were taken from a different silencer than 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23, by virtue of the fact that the 3rd silencer [`DRB/1', lab'item no. 23/22] had not yet been sent and received at the lab' until after these / those blood group evidences had already been obtained from the other one.
It's worth remembering that Essex police only received possession of the third silencer 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23/22, from 'Ann Eaton' on the 11th September 1985, together with the fact that the very first crime scene photographs that were taken of scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were taken by DC Oakey on the 14th September 1985, at a time when police still had possession of the 3rd silencer. It seems reasonable to assume that the Scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were deliberately made by co- operation of relatives and police. It would appear that the silencer inside which the blood group evidence was found must have got17 internal baffle plates identifying it being owned by 'Anthony Pargeter' [not the 14 baffle plated 'Bamber' owned one]. I have concluded, that the original silencer [`SBJ/1', item no. 22] that was collected by 'Ds Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, which' Jeremy' alerted both 'he' and 'DC Clark' about and which was the reason why 'DS Jones' left 'Jeremys cottage to return to the crime scene to collect what he beleived to be the' Bamber' owned silencer, which as it turns out must have been or was one and the same silencer in the guise of exhibit reference' SJ/1', lab' item no. 22, which 'Cook' had taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August 1985, a silencer which only had 14 internal baffle plates. The other two silencers sent and received at the lab' on the 30th August 1985, and 20th September 1985, must belong to 'Anthony Pargeter' and one of the relatives [Boutflour / Eaton clan]..
Or, did silencer 'SBJ/1' - 'SJ/1' [item no. 22 and later' referred to as lab' item no. 22] have 17 internalysed baffle plates? If true, then the silencer that was submitted to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, cannot have been 'owned by the Bamber' family, therefore rendering the submission of silencer 'DB/1' lab' item no. 23, to the lab' at Huntingdon as the 'Bamber' owned silencer, that took place on the 30th August 1985...
-
Or, did silencer 'SBJ/1' - 'SJ/1' [item no. 22 and later' referred to as lab' item no. 22] have 17 internalysed baffle plates? If true, then the silencer that was submitted to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, cannot have been 'owned by the Bamber' family, therefore rendering the submission of silencer 'DB/1' lab' item no. 23, to the lab' at Huntingdon as the 'Bamber' owned silencer, that took place on the 30th August 1985 [ an impossibility]
More, to follow..
-
I tend to beleive that the '999' call to police requesting ambulances at the scene timed at 6.09am onwards, was not made by 'Sheila Caffell' but that rather, it was 'Neville Bamber' [himself] who actually had made that '999 call' call to police at about 6.09am, to request an ambulance, or ambulances to attend the crime scene, which if true would prove beyond contemplation that, beyond reasonable doubt, that neither 'Sheila Caffell' nor 'Jeremy Bamber' was responsible for the taking of 'Neville Bambers' life...
what we are dealing with here, is 'a very serious miscarriage of justice', 'perpetrated by police', 'relatives' and 'the firearm officers, pinning the blame onto 'Jeremy' as the guilty party involved in this matter..
-
I tend to beleive that the '999' call to police requesting ambulances at the scene timed at 6.09am onwards, was not made by 'Sheila Caffell' but that rather, it was 'Neville Bamber' [himself] who actually had made that '999 call' call to police at about 6.09am, to request an ambulance, or ambulances to attend the crime scene, which if true would prove beyond contemplation that, beyond reasonable doubt, that neither 'Sheila Caffell' nor 'Jeremy Bamber' was responsible for the taking
The problem with this kind of evidence is that it's trace evidence. And the documentary evidence that may explain it exists. It would be a lot easier if we knew what triggered the enquiry on the part of the Met, within Stokenchurch. It's interesting regarding Millbank's alleged response to The Guardian reporter. I can't see it being NB though. In fact, even if it did occur from any adult occupant, who would have known about it? Why would they stay quiet about it? The only thing I can think of is that a decision was made it didn't look good on the police, not having entered earlier. But why would any 999 operatives stay silent? Given events immediately after the tragedy, somebody would have said something to somebody about having received such contact.
-
The problem with this kind of evidence is that it's trace evidence. And the documentary evidence that may explain it exists. It would be a lot easier if we knew what triggered the enquiry on the part of the Met, within Stokenchurch. It's interesting regarding Millbank's alleged response to The Guardian reporter. I can't see it being NB though. In fact, even if it did occur from any adult occupant, who would have known about it? Why would they stay quiet about it? The only thing I can think of is that a decision was made it didn't look good on the police, not having entered earlier. But why would any 999 operatives stay silent? Given events immediately after the tragedy, somebody would have said something to somebody about having received such contact.
The call in question here was the BT operator Jean Rowe who directed the WHF phone over the 999 line to the police station (and Millbank) so they can listen in. There was nobody in the house actually physically making a call.
-
The call in question here was the BT operator Jean Rowe who directed the WHF phone over the 999 line to the police station (and Millbank) so they can listen in. There was nobody in the house actually physically making a call.
That's what I thought. However, why did Millbank express that he was surprised that evidence still existed of the event? Did Millbank think that all evidence relating to it had been destroyed? And if it's so easy to work what actually took place from the available documents, then why where Met alerted to something which needed urgently checking? Somebody or something alerted Met to a '999 call'.
-
If Sheila had replaced the handset at all, then lifted it to dial 999 she needn't have said a word as 999 calls are traced.
-
The problem with this kind of evidence is that it's trace evidence. And the documentary evidence that may explain it exists. It would be a lot easier if we knew what triggered the enquiry on the part of the Met, within Stokenchurch. It's interesting regarding Millbank's alleged response to The Guardian reporter. I can't see it being NB though. In fact, even if it did occur from any adult occupant, who would have known about it? Why would they stay quiet about it? The only thing I can think of is that a decision was made it didn't look good on the police, not having entered earlier. But why would any 999 operatives stay silent? Given events immediately after the tragedy, somebody would have said something to somebody about having received such contact.
In my narrative there are two possible reasons. Firstly though highly contested the original call from NB before any injury, phoned 999. This would be routed to Bonnett at HQ. If Nevill abandoned this call with the phone off the hook, there would be an open 999 call at HQ. If the operator merely switched this to CD (chelmsford) they would not know what it was all about. Any detail of the call would be taped unless Bonnett killed the call at HQ. Given the fact that JB would have called at about the same time with his view of events it would make sense to keep the call live.
Secondly assuming the call was killed. Just prior to this event the police had been trying to make contact with anyone who was alive inside the building. In a siege situation the authorities almost always seek to establish contact with those inside usually by telephone. They could have suggested that those inside go to and pick up the phone or once the switch had been made and if the line had been killed dial 999, which would then give those in charge direct access to WHF from CD rather than HQ.
-
That's what I thought. However, why did Millbank express that he was surprised that evidence still existed of the event? Did Millbank think that all evidence relating to it had been destroyed? And if it's so easy to work what actually took place from the available documents, then why where Met alerted to something which needed urgently checking? Somebody or something alerted Met to a '999 call'.
Where are you getting this info from?
-
Where are you getting this info from?
I can't guarantee it was this forum. Millbank did act with suprise though. I am sure of it.
-
In my narrative there are two possible reasons. Firstly though highly contested the original call from NB before any injury, phoned 999. This would be routed to Bonnett at HQ. If Nevill abandoned this call with the phone off the hook, there would be an open 999 call at HQ. If the operator merely switched this to CD (chelmsford) they would not know what it was all about. Any detail of the call would be taped unless Bonnett killed the call at HQ. Given the fact that JB would have called at about the same time with his view of events it would make sense to keep the call live.
Secondly assuming the call was killed. Just prior to this event the police had been trying to make contact with anyone who was alive inside the building. In a siege situation the authorities almost always seek to establish contact with those inside usually by telephone. They could have suggested that those inside go to and pick up the phone or once the switch had been made and if the line had been killed dial 999, which would them give those in charge direct access to WHF from CD rather than HQ.
Interesting suggestions Bubo.
-
I can't guarantee it was this forum. Millbank did act with suprise though. I am sure of it.
That's not very helpful.
And what is your source for "the Met being alerted" and "urgently checking" the "999 call"?
-
That's not very helpful.
And what is your source for "the Met being alerted" and "urgently checking" the "999 call"?
I will try and find the document for you. It is a police action request.
-
I would like to express my thoughts about this suggestion. As far as the silencer is concerned I do not see the need for a third silencer. Even if the police had both AP's and JB's SM's they could have returned JB's to the family at any time once Ainsley was in charge. A lot would depend on how the creation of the faked/recreated silencer was organised. I do not believe it was all done by the family or the police but rather a joint enterprise. Clearly only the police could manipulate the paper work to suit. However if the length was an issue they would need an older SM to effect the switch, since JB's would be smaller. A third would be needed if JB's was at the lab and could not be retrieved for some reason.
I do not believe that Nevill was alive at entry. (see my Kitchen Capers thread) However, I do not rule out the police firing additional rounds into the deceased and set out some circumstances which might have led to such actions in that same thread.
-
I would like to express my thoughts about this suggestion. As far as the silencer is concerned I do not see the need for a third silencer. Even if the police had both AP's and JB's SM's they could have returned JB's to the family at any time once Ainsley was in charge. A lot would depend on how the creation of the faked/recreated silencer was organised. I do not believe it was all done by the family or the police but rather a joint enterprise. Clearly only the police could manipulate the paper work to suit. However if the length was an issue they would need an older SM to effect the switch, since JB's would be smaller. A third would be needed if JB's was at the lab and could not be retrieved for some reason.
I do not believe that Nevill was alive at entry. (see my Kitchen Capers thread) However, I do not rule out the police firing additional rounds into the deceased and set out some circumstances which might have led to such actions in this same thread.
I think that three different parker hale silencers were used [interchangeable] in the framing of 'Jeremy Bamber' by evidence put forward by the prosecutions case - confirmed in my view, by the fact that on the first day of trial [2nd October 1986], there was a silencer[court exhibit no. 9] and that an 'Essex police motor cycle outrider', visited the home of the relatives and collected two further, examples of 'parker hale silencers' to Chelmsford Crown court just in case the defendant or his legal system had fathomed out exactly how the police and others, had gone about setting 'Jeremy Bamber' up to take a fall by nominating him as the killer of five members of his family, when If the truth beknown, 'Jeremy' had killed no-one..
-
Q: are you saying that you suspect Sheila started the shootings and the police ended them?
One or the other, maybe, but both of them?
Why?
I can understand an outsider failing to complete his instructions and a certain officer (with instruction) ensuring that the job was completed and made to look like a deranged marksman (Jeremy) took the shots.
-
Q: are you saying that you suspect Sheila started the shootings and the police ended them?
One or the other, maybe, but both of them?
Why?
I can understand an outsider failing to complete his instructions and a certain officer (with instruction) ensuring that the job was completed and made to look like a deranged marksman (Jeremy) took the shots.
I BELIEVE that evidence exists to suggest that the overhaul of the five deaQ: are you saying that you suspect Sheila started the shootings and the police ended them?
One or the other, maybe, but both of them?
Why?
I can understand an outsider failing to complete his instructions and a certain officer (with instruction) ensuring that the job was completed and made to look like a deranged marksman (Jeremy) took the shots.
The family, were visited by drug supplying gang members, but 'unbeknown to themselves' , they were being 'monitored' [lets just say] by 'the security services' and 'followed on land' , and 'by air' [movements videod from above with use of 'a two seater aeroplane'. Once the security team realised that their target had gone directly to whf, they commandeered the support of Essex police officers [including the 'tfg' to attend the scene] who arrived there just to late to witness any of the shootings which had taken place inside the farmhouse at that stage...
However, upon arrival at the scene by 'PC Myall' and possibly 'DC Henderson' they both saw an unidentified male person walking away from the farmhouse, who 'PC Myall' attempted to pursue cautiously without success. Whilst this wasongoing, 'DC Henderson' took the opportunity to enter the farmhouse by the route the 'unidentified male' had recently left by. Thereafter, the occupants of 'CA07' arrived on the scene (3.48 am) at which stage 'PC Myall' told 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby' exactly what he had witnessed, and suspected. It was at some point afterwards that 'Jeremy' arrived at the scene (3.52am), and the three officers approached him altogether...
Meanwhile, 'DC Hendrson' had managed to find hiding places within tge farmhouse whilt gathering intelligence for the knowledge and benefit of a team of well-rehurst firearm officers...
-
Bearing in mind that 'Nevill Bamber' was supposedly shot, either by 'Sheila', 'Jeremy','or some third party involvement', it is worth taking into account the angle, direction, position of 'Neville Bambers' body at the time he received that 'tightly knit volley' of 'four fatal head shots' ..
Since, those four consecutively fired shots could not in my opinion have been fired with such accuracy and precision, by bullets or pellets that were fired from any of the three general types of. 22 firearm known to be present at the scene. Everything points to 'the use of an automatic weapon being used', similarly to shots fired into one of the child victims in this tragedy..
All agreed at trial the murderer was either Jeremy or Sheila. There's no evidence whatsover of third party involvement including accidental shootings by the police.
All bullets recovered were Eley subsonic .22 and markings on them matched rifling from the Anshutz. There's no evidence whasover of any other firearm involved in the shootings.
-
All agreed at trial the murderer was either Jeremy or Sheila. There's no evidence whatsover of third party involvement including accidental shootings by the police.
All bullets recovered were Eley subsonic .22 and markings on them matched rifling from the Anshutz. There's no evidence whasover of any other firearm involved in the shootings.
All bullets recovered were Eley subsonic .22 and markings on them matched rifling from the Anshutz. There's no evidence whasover of any other firearm involved in the shootings.
----------
I'm not sure how the police could end up shooting June. As claimed on here.
The rifle was laying in top of Sheila!
-
All bullets recovered were Eley subsonic .22 and markings on them matched rifling from the Anshutz. There's no evidence whasover of any other firearm involved in the shootings.
----------
I'm not sure how the police could end up shooting June. As claimed on here.
The rifle was laying in top of Sheila!
Because the rifle was on top of Sheila doesn't mean or say that it hadn't been placed there by someone.
It was initially found by the side of her body.
-
Because the rifle was on top of Sheila doesn't mean or say that it hadn't been placed there by someone.
It was initially found by the side of her body.
It was placed there by someone, BAMBER!
Please provide a source that the rifle was initially found by the side of Sheila's body.
Can you please start to post sources for your claims or make clear that it is your opinion only and you don't have a source. If you are unable or unwilling to do so I will report you to the moderator for flooding the board with unsubstainated claims.
-
It was placed there by someone, BAMBER!
Please provide a source that the rifle was initially found by the side of Sheila's body.
Can you please start to post sources for your claims or make clear that it is your opinion only and you don't have a source. If you are unable or unwilling to do so I will report you to the moderator for flooding the board with unsubstainated claims.
And you would know that JB placed the rifle there ??
Report all you like !!
-
It was placed there by someone, BAMBER!
Please provide a source that the rifle was initially found by the side of Sheila's body.
Can you please start to post sources for your claims or make clear that it is your opinion only and you don't have a source. If you are unable or unwilling to do so I will report you to the moderator for flooding the board with unsubstainated claims.
It may be time that Lookout received a short term ban.
Nine years is a long time to flood the forum with wild claims & not provide one source. She is not as aggressive as JackieD but certainly no angle.
-
It may be time that Lookout received a short term ban.
Nine years is a long time to flood the forum with wildclaims & not provide one source. She is not as aggressive as JackieD but certainly no angle.
You won't get rid of me that easily !
-
It was placed there by someone, BAMBER!
Please provide a source that the rifle was initially found by the side of Sheila's body.
Can you please start to post sources for your claims or make clear that it is your opinion only and you don't have a source. If you are unable or unwilling to do so I will report you to the moderator for flooding the board with unsubstainated claims.
TFG COLP statements. One had no recollection of a rifle at all - which is quite alarming, given that the officer in question had been sent in to the house, armed with a gun, for the purpose of tracking down and neutralising Sheila Caffell, who was suspected of being armed herself and of being involved in a shooting incident, in which she was the aggressor.
They raised serious concerns individually and as a team, regarding Sheila's crime scene having been tampered with. The defence did not know this until after the 2002 appeal.
-
And you would know that JB placed the rifle there ??
Report all you like !!
The defence and prosecution agree on certain aspects of the case eg the rifle was found across Sheila's body as depicted in scene of crime images. If someone here wants to reject this then surely you will appreciate it is good practice to either provide a source showing where we are all wrong or state that it is simply your own opinion and you do not have a source. I for one am not remotely interested in wild fantasises and theories that in reality have no basis to them. But I accept you have a right to post your opinions if you point out they are your opinions only and that you do not have a source.
A couple of days ago you claimed Sheila's fist caused June's black eye. I asked you for a source which you failed to provide. I then turned up the pathologist's trial testimony showing the bruising was in fact caused by gunshot injury. You did not attempt to apolgise for your mistake or thank me for providing the source showing you were wrong.
-
The defence and prosecution agree on certain aspects of the case eg the rifle was found across Sheila's body as depicted in scene of crime images. If someone here wants to reject this then surely you will appreciate it is good practice to either provide a source showing where we are all wrong or state that it is simply your own opinion and you do not have a source. I for one am not remotely interested in wild fantasises and theories that in reality have no basis to them. But I accept you have a right to post your opinions if you point out they are your opinions only and that you do not have a source.
A couple of days ago you claimed Sheila's fist caused June's black eye. I asked you for a source which you failed to provide. I then turned up the pathologist's trial testimony showing the bruising was in fact caused by gunshot injury. You did not attempt to apolgise for your mistake or thank me for providing the source showing you were wrong.
I then turned up the pathologist's trial testimony showing the bruising was in fact caused by gunshot injury.
----------
I didn't know that. Some of June's shots were near the eye.
Lookout will automatically defend any post from guilters. None of her posts will have sources.
-
The defence and prosecution agree on certain aspects of the case eg the rifle was found across Sheila's body as depicted in scene of crime images. If someone here wants to reject this then surely you will appreciate it is good practice to either provide a source showing where we are all wrong or state that it is simply your own opinion and you do not have a source. I for one am not remotely interested in wild fantasises and theories that in reality have no basis to them. But I accept you have a right to post your opinions if you point out they are your opinions only and that you do not have a source.
A couple of days ago you claimed Sheila's fist caused June's black eye. I asked you for a source which you failed to provide. I then turned up the pathologist's trial testimony showing the bruising was in fact caused by gunshot injury. You did not attempt to apolgise for your mistake or thank me for providing the source showing you were wrong.
So it's now become a banning offence to write down your own thoughts ? Since when ?
I did not make a mistake about the black eye as June had suffered one prior to the murders. Then I happened to say that June could have walked into Sheila's fist, not " that it caused it " which are two different things so if you're training to become a lawyer you've got a lot to learn !!
Your fault for being de-humanised. If you can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, then you're not as clever as I thought, especially as this case swings between the two !
I don't apologise nor bow and scrape for something I haven't done ! It's not my fault if you've got an accusatory disposition, you'll have to work on it.
-
So it's now become a banning offence to write down your own thoughts ? Since when ?
I did not make a mistake about the black eye as June had suffered one prior to the murders. Then I happened to say that June could have walked into Sheila's fist, not " that it caused it " which are two different things so if you're training to become a lawyer you've got a lot to learn !!
Your fault for being de-humanised. If you can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, then you're not as clever as I thought, especially as this case swings between the two !
I don't apologise nor bow and scrape for something I haven't done ! It's not my fault if you've got an accusatory disposition, you'll have to work on it.
Did I say it is a banning offence to post your own thoughts? I have politely asked that you either provide a source for anything that deviates from what is commonly accepted as factually correct or make clear it is your own opinion.
If June had a black eye prior to the murders I rather think others would have had something to say about it don't you? Eg Jean Boutell, Barbara Wilson, Colin Caffell, Jeremy Bamber, the people who saw her on 6th Aug eg shopkeepers, local villagers, farm workers.
The fact is there is no evidence June sustained a black eye prior to the murders or that she missed a bible class.
If June missed a bible class without giving advance warning of her absense don't you think the people concerned might have surfaced over the years?
If I didn't know better I could be forgiven for thinking you're a stooge to harm Bamber in that your posts actually make Bamber look even more guilty if that's at all possible!
-
Hopefully Lookout will start providing sources. Rather than posting 'find it yourself'.
Most of what she says is new information not online.
-
It was AE who'd mentioned the black eye in statement 30 as she'd reiterated what JB had told her that on " one part of his statement he'd told police officers that Aunt June Bamber had a black eye and when Jeremy asked her to account for it and apparently she'd said " I hit a post " . Jeremy thought there was more to her injury but Aunt June Bamber was not going to tell him ".
Statements in the archives of this forum.
-
How could Vanezis know for certain that the trajectory of the bullet was the cause of the black eye? How would he be able to rule out some other more direct cause?
-
I see the whole case a complete waste of time when statements whether substantiated or not are completely ignored if they fall within favour of JB. If I can remember certain things why can't anyone else ??
Which is why no memory of them is retained by those who find him guilty.
-
The defence and prosecution agree on certain aspects of the case eg the rifle was found across Sheila's body as depicted in scene of crime images.
I can assure you, you are mistaken. The defence do not agree. They might have agreed in 1985. But it's now 2021.
-
Hopefully Lookout will start providing sources. Rather than posting 'find it yourself'.
Most of what she says is new information not online.
ARCHIVES, Adam, ARCHIVES !!
-
I beleive that the shot between the eyes [June Bamber] could potentially have led to her deceased body, in particular, that her 'black eye' being formed as a result of the impact which occurred to those parts of her face after she had shot between her eyes - since, there are different interpretations regarding when a person is deemed to be dead..
-
I can assure you, you are mistaken. The defence do not agree. They might have agreed in 1985. But it's now 2021.
Are you saying Bamber completely lost his head and left the rifle elsewhere then?
-
Are you saying Bamber completely lost his head and left the rifle elsewhere then?
It wasn't JB who " lost his head " it was AP who hadn't known whether he'd left his rifle at WHF ( where it was licensed to be ) or if he'd taken it home. His statement hadn't made sense against what he'd told EP originally.
-
It wasn't JB who " lost his head " it was AP who hadn't known whether he'd left his rifle at WHF ( where it was licensed to be ) or if he'd taken it home. His statement hadn't made sense against what he'd told EP originally.
"AP" wasn't on trial.
-
"AP" wasn't on trial.
Well I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. ::)
-
Well I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. ::)
I like to keep it simple ;)